...Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton stated that had she known now what she knew at the time she voted for military intervention in Iraq, she would not have voted to commit American troops to Operation Iraqi Freedom...Senator Clinton, as have so many of her fellow Democratic Congress members who voted in favor of the war way-back-when, now claims conversion to the anti-war side in a manner comparable to Pauls blinding on the road to Damascus...Those Democrats who voted in favor of committing American troops to Operation Iraqi Freedom and who now have jumped on the Peace Train have a huge problem: how do they explain their lack of scrutiny to President Bush request for armed intervention and their subsequent vote in favor of it? ...had they somehow known exactly what the President knew then, they would never have voted for American military intervention... Senator Clinton (as are Senator John Kerry and former senator John Edwards...) is a trained, experienced attorney. Thinking critically and analyzing the evidence presented-not blind acceptance of it- are hallmarks of litigation work. These senators, and indeed each member of Congress, are serviced by a staff that can summon the expertise of retired military officers and members of the intelligence and diplomatic services to allow their respective senators and representatives to test the intelligence provided them by the President...Can anyone imagine what would have happened had our military interventions in Bosnia and Haiti-both initiated by President Bill Clinton, by the way-developed into insurgent wars of attrition? What would he have done? Had the casualty counts mounted and if the polls increasingly showed opposition to our continuing military involvement, would he have cut and run, or would he have remained resolute, firm in his belief that his decisions had been correct and understanding fully the consequences of withdrawal?...

Republicans need to attack the flip-flopping, the spin, the reconstruction of history in a manner that reveals Dems' incredibility, instead of responding defensively to the debate they frame and using the rhetoric they choose. The Dems leave themselves wide-open but Republicans most often are anemic. Attack their spin, we always win.

The whole "if we knew what the President knew we wouldn't have voted for the war" is lame. The Clinton Administration was calling for war over and over in the late 90's. Hillary had access to the same intelligence as Bill and Algore. This is classic flip-flop. Attack the flip-flop. That was the most successful tactic of 2004.

Why do Republicans allow Dems to reduce the reasons for war to WMDs and our intelligence reports? There was a continuously violated peace treaty, in & of itself grounds for war, 17 violated UN resolutions from the body that Dems say we should have gotten permission from, attempts at genocide for the Kurds and Shiites (reasons Clinton used for Kosovo & Somalia), and on and on. Why can't Republicans remind the people of these things? And , yes, there was the matter of Iraq harboring, training, and funding terrorists.

The GOP has been lame, as usual. The GOP is like General McClellan. It raises the funds, trains the troops, and then sits there, in organized rows, real pretty like up on the hill.

They could have mopped the floor with these people months ago, but they are afraid to spend any money.

When the enemy gets vicious, you have to fight back. We can't depend on conservative commentators alone to diffuse the overbearing influence of the extreme left wing media, left wing hollywood and lying democrat communists.

Quite frankly, the President needs to speak a bit louder. The quiet tones are certainly a strategy, but when the opponents rise to the level of treachery, you have to call them on it, and you have to call them on it loudly and repeatedly.

The democrats almost succeeded in creating a false deadline. The war will be over when its over, and not before. I quote myself "When the world gets so bonkers that people are flying aircraft into our skyscrapers, theres going to be HELL to pay."

1. Saddam kicked out the weapons inspectors. At that point, we were right by obligation to the safety of our people and the peoples of the world to believe every single rumor of WMD that came out of there because we no longer had any inspectors to give us eyes and ears. An elected official must always err on the side of safety, especially when dealing with a tyrant who had been proven to use mustard gas and other WMD's on his own people.

The democrats have succeeded, however, in obfuscating this issue. Largely, because GOP rolled over and let them do it. Can't they find any body with brains to run the thing?

2. We went over there to remove Saddam, because he violated the agreements signed to end the first conflict. Not, because of WMD's, per se. As President Bush said it to the U.N., the U.N. directives had been violated for some twelve years and the directives "must have teeth" or they had no value. After over twelve years of shooting at our aircraft enforcing the no-fly zone, flaunting U.N. directives, it was time to hold Saddam responsible. So when Sen. Waters wants to tell you we were "lied to" she is simply stupid, and I feel sorry for her. Still, she must be corrected at every opportunity and not allowed to get away with such stupidity. Call her on every error.

3. CNN, et al. Because of Saddams repeated defiance, he was embargoed. The embargo was adjusted with the 'oil for food program' which Saddam just used to enrich himself and let his people starve. CNN: Dateline Baghdad "The people are starving." And so, we got day after day after day of "people starving" and "hospitals with no medicines" on our TV sets. So tell me, democrat body counters... how many Iraqis would have died if we had just left the embargo in place? It was not working. Nothing was working. When you deal with a Saddam, Kim, Chavez, or a Hitler, and the idiot in Iraq, there is only one option that works.

4. Having removed Saddam, finding him in his little hidey-hole and having brought him to justice, the safety of millions of Iraq's is now our burden. We have, to borrow a democrat term, 'invested' billions of dollars in building up infrastructure, much as we did for Germany and France. We have built dozens of brand spanking new clinics with pharmacies, installed new power substations to replace a decayed old one, installed a 911 emergency phone service for the first time. We have trained and equiped their armies and police. We have done a lot in our time there, and we have done well, and we are nearing the completion of the task. We have invested our own lives and blood in this struggle. We are winning, and we will have victory if we have to drag Pelosi and her panty-waist pacifists miles along the way.

The democrats must rush in a big hurry now that Saddam is dead and 20,000 heros are going to crush the enemy, because there is still a dim possibility that they can snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. May God Speed Our Troops!

8
posted on 01/27/2007 1:35:57 PM PST
by 1-Eagle
(You cant sit in the stands and boo your team on the field, and credibly say defeat is not your fault)

To believe that The Beast and Kerry were deceived is to believe that they, the two smartest and nuanced humans in history were tricked by a socalled dumb frat boy. It doesn't add up, but that will never stop the old and declining media.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.